Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/bddt8ucr
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS To prepare for the discussion, please re-review the following on the fast undo mechanism called Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy (ETRP) that was proposed, but ultimately discarded in IRTP-B:
|
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: none Alternates: none |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Zoom RecordingChat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Actions from Meeting on 14 February: None identified.
Notes:
2. Welcome and Chair Updates
3. Introduction to Phase 2 topics: Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC), Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP), and Fast Undo – see the attached slides.
4. Time permitting, begin discussion of fast undo -- what is different since the rejection of the Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy (ETRP) proposal? See TDRP decisions at: https://www.adndrc.org/decisions/tdrp and https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions Discussion:
Discussion of Pain Points Relating to the TEAC:
Charter Questions: Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC?
Is there merit to concerns that the requirement disproportionately impacts certain registrars, namely:
Registrars in countries where English is not the primary language? To what extent should the 4-hour time frame be revisited in light of these concerns? Are there alternative means to address the underlying concerns other than adjusting the time frame? Discussion:
Is additional guidance needed to define a “reasonable period of time” after which registrars should be expected to use a standard dispute resolution process? Discussion:
Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? Discussion:
Several factors make a Registry Operator’s obligation to “undo” a transfer under Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy challenging – are updates needed? To what extent are changes to the policy needed to address these concerns? Are there other pain points for Registry Operators that need to be considered in the review of the policy in this regard? Discussion:
5. AOB |